Implementing an A/B/n experiment
Implementing an experiment
Start by generating a feature flag using the bin/feature-flag
command as you
usually would for a development feature flag, making sure to use experiment
for
the type. For the sake of documentation let’s name our feature flag (and experiment)
pill_color
.
bin/feature-flag pill_color -t experiment
After you generate the desired feature flag, you can immediately implement an experiment in code. A basic experiment implementation can be:
experiment(:pill_color, actor: current_user) do |e|
e.control { 'control' }
e.variant(:red) { 'red' }
e.variant(:blue) { 'blue' }
end
When this code executes, the experiment is run, a variant is assigned, and (if in a
controller or view) a window.gl.experiments.pill_color
object is available in the
client layer, with details like:
- The assigned variant.
- The context key for client tracking events.
In addition, when an experiment runs, an event is tracked for
the experiment :assignment
. We cover more about events, tracking, and
the client layer later.
In local development, you can make the experiment active by using the feature flag interface. You can also target specific cases by providing the relevant experiment to the call to enable the feature flag:
# Enable for everyone
Feature.enable(:pill_color)
# Get the `experiment` method -- already available in controllers, views, and mailers.
include Gitlab::Experiment::Dsl
# Enable for only the first user
Feature.enable(:pill_color, experiment(:pill_color, actor: User.first))
To roll out your experiment feature flag on an environment, run the following command using ChatOps (which is covered in more depth in the Feature flags in development of GitLab documentation). This command creates a scenario where half of everyone who encounters the experiment would be assigned the control, 25% would be assigned the red variant, and 25% would be assigned the blue variant:
/chatops run feature set pill_color 50 --actors
For an even distribution in this example, change the command to set it to 66% instead of 50.
/chatops run feature set pill_color false
command.--actors
flag when using the ChatOps commands,
as anything else may give odd behaviors due to how the caching of variant assignment is
handled.We can also implement this experiment in a HAML file with HTML wrappings:
#cta-interface
- experiment(:pill_color, actor: current_user) do |e|
- e.control do
.pill-button control
- e.variant(:red) do
.pill-button.red red
- e.variant(:blue) do
.pill-button.blue blue
The importance of context
In our previous example experiment, our context (this is an important term) is a hash
that’s set to { actor: current_user }
. Context must be unique based on how you
want to run your experiment, and should be understood at a lower level.
It’s expected, and recommended, that you use some of these contexts to simplify reporting:
-
{ actor: current_user }
: Assigns a variant and is “sticky” to each user (or “client” ifcurrent_user
is nil) who enters the experiment. -
{ project: project }
: Assigns a variant and is “sticky” to the project being viewed. If running your experiment is more useful when viewing a project, rather than when a specific user is viewing any project, consider this approach. -
{ group: group }
: Similar to the project example, but applies to a wider scope of projects and users. -
{ actor: current_user, project: project }
: Assigns a variant and is “sticky” to the user who is viewing the given project. This creates a different variant assignment possibility for every project thatcurrent_user
views. Understand this can create a large cache size if an experiment like this in a highly trafficked part of the application. -
{ wday: Time.current.wday }
: Assigns a variant based on the current day of the week. In this example, it would consistently assign one variant on Friday, and a potentially different variant on Saturday.
Context is critical to how you define and report on your experiment. It’s usually the most important aspect of how you choose to implement your experiment, so consider it carefully, and discuss it with the wider team if needed. Also, take into account that the context you choose affects our cache size.
After the above examples, we can state the general case: given a specific and consistent context, we can provide a consistent experience and track events for that experience. To dive a bit deeper into the implementation details: a context key is generated from the context that’s provided. Use this context key to:
- Determine the assigned variant.
- Identify events tracked against that context key.
We can think about this as the experience that we’ve rendered, which is both dictated and tracked by the context key. The context key is used to track the interaction and results of the experience we’ve rendered to that context key. These concepts are somewhat abstract and hard to understand initially, but this approach enables us to communicate about experiments as something that’s wider than just user behavior.
actor:
uses cookies if the current_user
is nil. If you don’t need
cookies though - meaning that the exposed functionality would only be visible to
authenticated users - { user: current_user }
would be just as effective.{ time: Time.current }
you would be inflating the cache size every time the
experiment is run. Not only that, your experiment would not be “sticky” and events
wouldn’t be resolvable.Advanced experimentation
There are two ways to implement an experiment:
- The basic experiment style described previously.
- A more advanced style where an experiment class is provided.
The advanced style is handled by naming convention, and works similar to what you would expect in Rails.
To generate a custom experiment class that can override the defaults in
ApplicationExperiment
use the Rails generator:
rails generate gitlab:experiment pill_color control red blue
This generates an experiment class in app/experiments/pill_color_experiment.rb
with the behaviors we’ve provided to the generator. Here’s an example
of how that class would look after migrating our previous example into it:
class PillColorExperiment < ApplicationExperiment
control { 'control' }
variant(:red) { 'red' }
variant(:blue) { 'blue' }
end
We can now simplify where we run our experiment to the following call, instead of
providing the block we were initially providing, by explicitly calling run
:
experiment(:pill_color, actor: current_user).run
The behaviors we defined in our experiment class represent the default implementation. You can still use the block syntax to override these behaviors however, so the following would also be valid:
experiment(:pill_color, actor: current_user) do |e|
e.control { '<strong>control</strong>' }
end
experiment
method, it is implicitly invoked as
if run
has been called.Segmentation rules
You can use runtime segmentation rules to, for instance, segment contexts into a specific
variant. The segment
method is a callback (like before_action
) and so allows providing
a block or method name.
In this example, any user named 'Richard'
would always be assigned the red
variant, and any account older than 2 weeks old would be assigned the blue variant:
class PillColorExperiment < ApplicationExperiment
# ...registered behaviors
segment(variant: :red) { context.actor.first_name == 'Richard' }
segment :old_account?, variant: :blue
private
def old_account?
context.actor.created_at < 2.weeks.ago
end
end
When an experiment runs, the segmentation rules are executed in the order they’re defined. The first segmentation rule to produce a truthy result assigns the variant.
In our example, any user named 'Richard'
, regardless of account age, is always
assigned the red variant. If you want the opposite logic, flip the order.
Exclusion rules
Exclusion rules are similar to segmentation rules, but are intended to determine if a context should even be considered as something we should include in the experiment and track events toward. Exclusion means we don’t care about the events in relation to the given context.
These examples exclude all users named 'Richard'
, and any account
older than 2 weeks old. Not only are they given the control behavior - which could
be nothing - but no events are tracked in these cases as well.
class PillColorExperiment < ApplicationExperiment
# ...registered behaviors
exclude :old_account?, ->{ context.actor.first_name == 'Richard' }
private
def old_account?
context.actor.created_at < 2.weeks.ago
end
end
You may also need to check exclusion in custom tracking logic by calling should_track?
:
class PillColorExperiment < ApplicationExperiment
# ...registered behaviors
def expensive_tracking_logic
return unless should_track?
track(:my_event, value: expensive_method_call)
end
end
Tracking events
One of the most important aspects of experiments is gathering data and reporting on
it. You can use the track
method to track events across an experimental implementation.
You can track events consistently to an experiment if you provide the same context between
calls to your experiment. If you do not understand context, you should read
about contexts now.
We can assume we run the experiment in one or a few places, but track events potentially in many places. The tracking call remains the same, with the arguments you would usually use when tracking events using snowplow. The easiest example of tracking an event in Ruby would be:
experiment(:pill_color, actor: current_user).track(:clicked)
When you run an experiment with any of the examples so far, an :assignment
event
is tracked automatically by default. All events that are tracked from an
experiment have a special
experiment context
added to the event. This can be used - typically by the data team - to create a connection
between the events on a given experiment.
If our user hasn’t encountered the experiment (meaning where the experiment
is run), and we track an event for them, they are assigned a variant and see
that variant if they ever encountered the experiment later, when an :assignment
event would be tracked at that time for them.
Experiments in the client layer
Any experiment that’s been run in the request lifecycle surfaces in window.gl.experiments
,
and matches this schema
so it can be used when resolving experimentation in the client layer.
Given that we’ve defined a class for our experiment, and have defined the variants for it, we can publish that experiment in a couple ways.
The first way is by running the experiment. Assuming the experiment has been run, it surfaces in the client layer without having to do anything special.
The second way doesn’t run the experiment and is intended to be used if the experiment must only surface in the client layer. To accomplish this we can .publish
the experiment. This does not run any logic, but does surface the experiment details in the client layer so they can be used there.
An example might be to publish an experiment in a before_action
in a controller. Assuming we’ve defined the PillColorExperiment
class, like we have above, we can surface it to the client by publishing it instead of running it:
before_action -> { experiment(:pill_color).publish }, only: [:show]
You can then see this surface in the JavaScript console:
window.gl.experiments // => { pill_color: { excluded: false, experiment: "pill_color", key: "ca63ac02", variant: "candidate" } }
Using experiments in Vue
With the gitlab-experiment
component, you can define slots that match the name of the
variants pushed to window.gl.experiments
.
We can make use of the named slots in the Vue component, that match the behaviors defined in :
<script>
import GitlabExperiment from '~/experimentation/components/gitlab_experiment.vue';
export default {
components: { GitlabExperiment }
}
</script>
<template>
<gitlab-experiment name="pill_color">
<template #control>
<button class="bg-default">Click default button</button>
</template>
<template #red>
<button class="bg-red">Click red button</button>
</template>
<template #blue>
<button class="bg-blue">Click blue button</button>
</template>
</gitlab-experiment>
</template>
window.gl.experiments
object for the given experiment name, the control
slot is used, if it exists.